November 28, 2023 - Town of Braintree

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · from the EPA · 13 pages · 5.0 MB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗

Office of the Mayor 
One JFK Memorial Drive
Braintree, Massachusetts 02184 
Charles C. Kokoros
Mayor 
781-794-8100 
November 28, 2023 
Michele Barden 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - 
Region 1 
5 Post Office Square, Suite I 00 (06-1) 
Boston, MA 02109 
barden.michele@epa.gov 
Claire Golden 
Surface Discharge Program 
Massachusetts Department of Environmental 
Protection 
150 Presidential Way 
Woburn, MA 01801 
massdep.npdes@mass.gov 
RE: Comments on Draft Permit No. MA0103284 for the MWRA Deer Island Treatment Plant 
Dear Ms. Barden and Ms. Golden: 
The Town of Braintree (Braintree) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. MA0l 03284 (the Draft
Permit) for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Deer Island Treatment Plant
(DITP), which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Region 1 (EPA or the Region) .
noticed for comment on May 31, 2023. 1 As one of the entities subject to the terms of the Draft
Permit once they are finalized, Braintree writes to express its support for the comments
submitted by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Advisory Board (Advisory Board),
which are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein, and also to write separately to
articulate and highlight issues of particular concern to our community. 
As an initial matter, Braintree has substantial concerns about the Draft Permit's
imposition of a novel requirement to develop and implement a major storm and flood event plans
for its sewer system. This requirement will impose significant financial and resource burdens on
communities like Braintree. The extent of these burdens is unknown because neither EPA nor
MassDEP has conducted any cost-benefit analysis of this new requirement. Braintree also has
significant concerns about the Draft Permit's directive to complete and begin implementing a 
1 On May 31 , 2023, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) also issued a draft 
2023 Draft Massachusetts Permit to Discharge Pollutants to Surface Waters for DITP (the State Permit) that 
incorporates by reference Parts I.A-Kand Part II of the Draft Permit. This letter similarly comments on the State 
Permit. 
1

plan within twelve months of the effective date of the final permit. Our community is also 
concerned that the mandate to modify its plan whenever new data are generated or discovered 
threatens to cast aside local planning priorities in favor of a federally mandated, perpetual 
planning cycle. 
Braintree has other significant concerns with the Draft Permit discussed in detail below.
In particular, the Draft Permit and State Permit inappropriately regulate communities like
Braintree as co-permittees and have failed to define their obligations with adequate clarity. As
the Advisory Board has commented, unless EPA and MassDEP clarify the communities' and
MWRA's responsibilities, the DITP's permit could upset the longstanding and successful
relationship among MWRA and the communities. 
I. Major Storm and Flood Events Planning Requirements 
Part I.E.2.(e)(2) of the Draft Permit (the Major Events Planning Provisions) would
impose on Braintree and other towns novel and onerous long-term obligations to develop and
implement plans to address sewer systems climate change resiliency. These plans, which the
Draft Permit requires to be updated every five years, must include (1) an asset vulnerability
evaluation; (2) a systematic vulnerability evaluation, and (3) a mitigation measures alternatives
analysis, and they must take into consideration future conditions, "specifically the midterm (i.e.,
20-30 years) and long-term (i.e., 80-100 years) and, in the case of sea level change, the plan must
consider sea level change." Draft Permit Part I.E.2.(e)(2). 
This requirement could strain Braintree's resources beyond their breaking point and
disrupt its broader capital planning process. The Draft Permit also gives Braintree insufficient
time to complete its plan. Worse yet, EPA lacks the authority to impose this new planning and
project development obligation in DITP's NPDES permit, and both EPA and MassDEP have
failed entirely to justify this new set of obligations. 
A. EPA Failed to Evaluate the Costs that Braintree and Other Communities
Will Bear. 
Complying with the Major Events Planning Provisions will impose substantial costs on
Braintree. The investments to undertake this work, including the up-front vulnerability and
mitigation alternatives analysis and the significant implementation and ongoing re-evaluation
requirements, will likely require thousands of hours of personnel time and the engagement of
outside consultants. These costs could pale in comparison to the potential capital costs that
Braintree may incur in order to implement mitigation measures that could even require relocating
existing facilities or building new ones. 
The associated financial burdens on communities like Braintree are unknown but certain
to be substantial. Braintree will need to assess whether it must hire more staff or engage
consultants to comply with the Major Events Planning Provisions. Based on its planning efforts,
Braintree will then have to modify its capital plans and budget for resiliency projects. These
additional costs will ultimately impact other parts of Braintree's budget, resulting in lower
spending on other critical infrastructure or other community needs. 
2

EPA and MassDEP must evaluate these costs before finalizing the Major Events Planning
Provisions. At the very minimum, before issuing a final permit, EPA or MassDEP should
provide Braintree and the public more generally with a formal cost-benefit assessment that
informs all interested parties of the cost burdens of implementing these novel and significant
planning and implementation requirements. 
B. The Major Events Planning Provisions Do Not Provide Sufficient Time for
Compliance. 
The Major Events Planning Provisions provide Braintree inadequate time to develop a
plan that must accomplish the following: (1) analyze sewer system-related assets and assess
vulnerabilities, (2) conduct a systemic vulnerability evaluation of each individual system and
develop an alternatives analysis, and (3) begin implementing mitigation measures. Draft Permit
Part I.E.2.(e)(2). The Draft Permit affords Braintree and its peer communities only 12 months to
accomplish these tasks, an amount of time that is obviously insufficient to (a) retain the
necessary staff or consultants and (b) complete the tasks required by the Draft Permit. 
If EPA and MassDEP insist on including the Major Events Planning Provisions, the
agencies must provide Braintree and other communities a reasonable deadline to complete this
major undertaking. Any final permit should allow the communities at least sixty months (5
years) to develop and begin implementing major storm and flood events plans. 
C. The Agencies Should Explore Whether Existing Programs Achieve the
Objectives of the Major Events Planning Provisions. 
Before requiring Braintree to expend the significant resources necessary to comply with
the onerous Major Events Planning Provisions, the agencies should assess the extent to which
existing efforts or programs address or could be adapted to address the interests EPA seeks to
protect through the Major Events Planning Provisions. For example, wastewater utilities in
Massachusetts regularly seek funding from the Commonwealth's Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF), and this program already requires applicants to comply with planning and asset
management requirements in order to receive funding. The agencies may find that the CWSRF is
a better tool to address long-term planning obligations than an NOPES permit that is limited to
governing specific discharges over a five-year term. 
D. EPA and MassDEP Failed to Justify These Planning Requirements. 
In addition to the foregoing issues, Braintree is concerned that it has not had an adequate
opportunity to comment on the Major Events Planning Provisions because EPA and MassDEP
have failed to show their work. Both agencies' fact sheets must address "the significant factual,
legal, methodological and policy questions considered in preparing the draft permit." 40 C.F.R. 
§ 124.8(a); 314 CMR 2.05(3). For a set ofprogrammatic requirements as important and
sweeping as the Major Events Planning Provisions, one would expect substantial discussions of
the various "factual, legal, methodological and policy questions" each agency considered. 
3

EPA, however, justified the Major Events Planning Provisions by simply declaring them
"necessary to ensure proper operation and maintenance" of wastewater treatment infrastructure. 2 
Fact Sheet at 102-03. This explanation fails short of what EPA's regulations require, but it at
least provides some indication of EPA's views. MassDEP, by contrast, failed entirely to discuss
the Major Events Planning Provisions in its Supplemental Fact Sheet. If Braintree and the public
are to have a meaningful opportunity to comment on the Draft Permit, the agencies must better
explain the Major Events Planning provisions and allow for additional public comment. 
Braintree suspects that EPA may have failed to justify the Major Events Planning
Provisions because it lacks authority to impose them under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The
statute limits EPA's authority under the NPDES program to regulating discharges, not the wider
facility (or facilities) that discharge. See, e.g., Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 859
F.2d 156, 170 (D.C.Cir.1988) ("[T]he [Clean Water Act] does not empower the agency to
regulate point sources themselves; rather, EPA' s jurisdiction under the operative statute is
limited to regulating the discharge of pollutants."). The Major Events Planning Provisions,
however, reach far beyond regulating discharges by potentially regulating the location of
permittees' facilities or even requiring the construction of additional infrastructure. Because the
Major Events Planning Provisions exceed EPA' s jurisdiction under the CWA, they should be
removed from any final permit. 
II. THE DRAFT PERMIT IMPERMISSIBLY INCLUDES SANITARY SEWER
COMMUNITIES AS CO-PERMITTEES. 
As the Advisory Board has emphasized in its comments, for the first time, EPA and
MassDEP are attempting to regulate Braintree and thirty-eight other sanitary sewer communities
under DITP's permit. This radical change to these communities' regulatory obligations exceeds
both agencies' respective authorities and threatens to disrupt the longstanding relationships
between MWRA and the communities it serves. The agencies have also sought to impose this
new regime without Braintree's consent by unlawfully waiving their permit application
requirements. 
Worse yet, MassDEP has provided no explanation at all for its decision to regulate the
Co-permittees under the State Permit. MassDEP has an obligation to provide a "summary of the
basis for the draft permit conditions including references to applicable statutory or regulatory
provisions" in its fact sheets but has provided none in the Supplemental Fact Sheet for including
these Co-Permittees in the State Permit. 314 CMR 2.05(3)(c). In order for Braintree to have an
adequate opportunity to comment on the State Permit, MassDEP should explain its reasons and
open a new comment period. 
A. Neither EPA nor MassDEP Has Jurisdiction to Regulate Communities Like
Braintree. 
1. The Federal Draft Permit 
2 This explanation appears inconsistent with what the Major Events Planning Provisions require. They do far more
than ensuring "proper operation and maintenance" by requiring Braintree and other towns to consider-and possibly
pursue-relocating facilities or building entirely new ones. Draft Permit Part I.E.2.e.(2)i.(c)(ii), (iv). 
4

The Draft Permit's inclusion of Braintree as Co-permittee exceeds the EPA's authority
under the NPDES program. Under the CWA, EPA may only regulate "the discharge of [a]
pollutant." 33 U.S.C. § 131 l(a). A regulated discharge requires an "addition of any pollutant to
navigable waters from [a] point source ...." 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 122.2. Unless
its sanitary sewer system adds a pollutant to navigable waters, Braintree is "neither statutorily
obligated to comply with EPA regulations for point source discharges, nor are they statutorily
obligated to seek or obtain an NPDES permit." Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. EPA, 399 F.3d
486, 504 (2d Cir. 2005); Nat'! Pork Producers Council v. EPA, 635 F.2d 738, 751 (5th Cir.
2011) ("There must be an actual discharge into navigable waters to trigger the CWA's
requirements and the EPA's authority."). 
Braintree's sanitary sewer system adds no pollutants to navigable waters. As EPA
concedes in the Fact Sheet, it only adds pollutants to MWRA's treatment works. Fact Sheet 20
("The Massachusetts municipalities in Appendix A own and operate wastewater collection
systems that discharge flows to the DITP" (emphasis added)). The only addition of pollutants to
navigable waters occurs downstream from Braintree's sewers, when DITP discharges treated
effluent from Outfall T0l. 3 
EPA rules reinforce that the communities do not have discharges that trigger the Region's
CWA authority. The regulatory definition of a "discharge of a pollutant" explains that the term
encompasses releases "through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances owned by a State,
municipality, or other person which do not lead to a treatment works ...." This language would
only be necessary if the obverse is true: flows conveyed through municipally-owned sewers that 
do lead to a treatment works are not discharges. 
2. The State Permit 
For the reasons set forth above, MassDEP regulation of Braintree and the other Co
permittees in the State Permit is inconsistent with the regulations governing Surface Water
Discharge Permits. The Surface Water Discharge Permit regulations, like the CWA, generally
impose the requirement to obtain a permit on persons who "discharge pollutants to surface
waters ...." 314 CMR 3.03(1). And much like the federal program, the regulations define a
"discharge" as an "addition of any pollutant to waters of the Commonwealth," and explain that a
discharge includes "discharges through ... sewers, or other conveyances owned by a ...
municipality ... which do not lead to a POTW." 314 CMR 3 .02. 
The sanitary systems' conveyance of flows to DITP involves no addition of pollutants to
any waters of the Commonwealth. They add flows only to the downstream POTW, a
circumstance that the regulations make clear is not a discharge that requires a permit. 
3 The Region's assertion that a sewer system's Jack of proximity to the "the ultimate discharge point is not material
to the question of whether it 'discharges"' is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Act. Fact
Sheet, Appendix D at 13. In County ofMaui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, the Court explained that "[t]ime and distance
traveled are obviously important" to determining whether a regulated discharge has occurred. 140 S. Ct. 1462, 1476
(2020). 
5

B. Communities like Braintree are not part of the Deer Island Publicly-Owned
Treatment Works. 
1. The Federal Draft Permit 
EPA cannot cure its lack ofjurisdiction by lumping Braintree and other sanitary sewer
communities in with the larger publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) that includes DITP
authorized under the Draft Permit. 4 EPA's regulations define a POTW to be "a treatment works
... which is owned by a State or municipality-expressed only in the singular. 40 C.F.R.
§ 403.3(q) (emphasis added); see also id. (referring to "the municipality ... which has
jurisdiction over Indirect Discharges to and discharges from such a treatment works." (emphasis
added). The definition's use of the singular means that a POTW can only be owned by a single
municipal entity, such that Braintree's sewer system cannot be part of same POTW as DITP. 
EPA's regulatory definition of a "discharge" confirms that the Region has improperly
expanded the definition of POTW to span multiple communities' sewer systems. That definition
covers "discharges through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances owned by ... a municipality ...
which do not lead to a treatment works." 40 C.F.R. § 122.2. If a satellite collection system could
be part of a POTW, there would never be circumstance where a municipally-owned sewer could
"lead to a treatment works." Instead, this provision would refer to municipally-owned sewers
"which are not part of a treatment works." The Region's attempt to make the Co-Permittees part
of the same POTW as DITP contradicts and cannot be reconciled with its own regulations. 
2. The State Permit 
MassDEP similarly cannot deem Braintree's sewer system part of the same POTW as
DITP under its permitting regulations. Like their federal counterpart, the Surface Water
Discharge Permit regulations define a POTW by reference to a single public entity rather than
several. See 314 CMR 3.02 ("any device or system used in the treatment ... of municipal sewage
... which is owned by a public entity." (emphasis added)). Having chosen to define a POTW by
reference to a single owner, MassDEP cannot include satellite systems owned by thirty-nine
communities in the same POTW as DITP. 
C. Braintree Has Not Submitted An Application To EPA or MassDEP, and
Neither Agency Has Authority To Waive The Requirement To Do So. 
Braintree did not submit a permit application to either EPA or MassDEP. Even if the
agencies could regulate the Co-permittees in DITP's permit, issuance of a permit to a community
that never submitted a permit application would violate their respective permitting regulations.
EPA's rules specify that "[a]ny person who discharges ... must submit a complete application
.... " 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(a)(l). The Region then "shall not issue a permit before receiving a
complete application for a permit .... " Without a permit application from Braintree, EPA cannot
issue a permit imposing conditions on Braintree. 
4 See Fact Sheet, App'x D at 10 (EPA may regulate satellite communities because they are part of"facilities subject
to the NPDES program"); id. ("NPDES regulations similarly identify the 'POTW' as the entity subject to
regulation."). 
6

EPA cannot avoid this problem by waiving application requirements. See Fact Sheet 12, 
21. EPA' s March 8, 2023 letter to Braintree claimed that 40 C.F .R. § 121.21 (j) authorized the
Region to waive permit application requirements in their entirety. See Town of Braintree's
waiver letter attached hereto. The Region's waiver authority under this provision, however,
extends only "to any requirement under this paragraph [i.e., the POTW-specific requirements in
§ 122.210)]." 40 C.F.R. § 122.210). Thus, EPA only could have waived discrete information
requirements for treatment works, not the fundamental requirement that a regulated entity submit
a permit application. Accord 64 Fed. Reg. 42434, 42440 (Aug. 4, 1999) ("EPA proposed the
introductory paragraph of§ 122.210) to allow the Director to waive any requirement in 
paragraph OJ" (emphasis added)). The Region violated its own regulations by attempting to
waive Braintree's obligation to submit an application. 
MassDEP similarly violated its regulations by seeking to regulate Braintree in the State
Permit without having received a permit application from Braintree. The Surface Water
Discharge Permit rules specify that "[a]ny person required to obtain a permit ... shall complete
and submit the appropriate application form(s)." 314 CMR 3.10(1); see also 314 CMR 2.03(1)
("Any person required to obtain an individual permit ... shall apply to the Department.").
MassDEP "shall not issue a permit before receiving a complete application ...." 314 CMR
3.10(4); see also 314 CMR 3.02(2) "The Department shall not issue an individual permit ...
before receiving a complete application."). Nothing in MassDEP's regulations offer the
department any authority to waive permit application requirements. This framework dictates that
MassDEP cannot issue a permit that regulates Braintree because Braintree has not submitted an
application for a Surface Water Discharge Permit. 
III. The Draft Permit Fails to Define with Sufficient Clarity the Relative Responsibilities
of MWRA, CSO-Responsible Co-Permittees and Co-Permittees. 
Even if EPA and MassDEP could lawfully structure DITP's permit to include Braintree
and other communities, neither the Draft Permit nor the State Permit define these parties'
obligations with clarity sufficient to ensure that they are not held liable for conduct or events
over which they have no control. 
The cover page and Part I.E.2 must be revised to provide the communities and MWRA
with absolute clarity that the communities are not responsible for MWRA's noncompliance and
vice versa. Any final permit issued by EPA and MassDEP must make clear that the communities
cannot be held liable for violations of permit requirements applicable to DITP; the Draft Permit
and State Permit fail to do this. Language in Part C, Part D, and Part E must also be clarified
further to remove any ambiguity regarding the several liability of MWRA, the CSO-responsible
Co-permittees, and the Co-permittees. 
It is particularly critical that EPA and MassDEP clearly delineate these responsibilities to
avoid disrupting the longstanding relationship between MWRA and the communities, and among
the communities themselves. Each community and MWRA have their own responsibilities with
respect to wastewater treatment, and collection system management and compliance. 5 Under its 
5 See Acts of 1984 ch. 372, § 26(d), 1984 Mass. Acts 809 (each local body served by MWRA has "the charge and
control of the respective water, waterworks and sewer works owned and used by said local body and not in the
ownership, possession and control of [MWRA]."). 
7

organic statute, MWRA must be accountable to the communities, rather than a manager or 
regulator of the satellite sewer systems it serves. An NPDES permit or Surface Water Discharge 
Permit that could make the communities liable for MWRA's conduct--or vice versa--could 
threaten that relationship. Accordingly, Braintree supports the Advisory Board's proposed 
revisions to the Draft Permit's language that the Board submitted with its comments. 
IV. Additional Concerns and Requests for Information 
. Braintree has worked with its sewer consultant to evaluate the requirements and timelines
in the Draft Permit. Due to the significant effort and funding required to undertake the Draft
Permit's requirements, the deadlines for these requirements should be amended as follows: 
A. Part 1.E.2.d- EPA is proposing within 30 months of the effective date of this Permit,
Co-permittees shall prepare a map of the sewer collection system it owns and operates.
This deadline should be extended to 36 months allow for time to complete and refine
mapping. Significant effort may be required to create a complete map of the sewer
system, including manhole inspections and CCTV inspection. 
B. Part I.E.2.e(2)- EPA is proposing within 12 months of the effective date of the
Permit, Co-permittees shall develop and implement a Sewer System Flood Events Plan as
an element of the Sewer System Operations and Maintenance Plan. This is insufficient
time to complete this task. This deadline should be extended to 60 months (5 years). 
C. Part I.E.2.e(3)- EPA is proposing within 24 months of the effective date of the
Permit, Co-pennittees shall submit the full Sewer System O&M Plan. Given the work
required for the Sewer System Flood Events Plan, this is insufficient time to complete
this task. This deadline should be extended to 72 months (6 years). 
Braintree also requests clarifications on certain permit requirements as follows: 
A. Please confirm that GPS coordinates of manholes is not required. 
B. Part I.E.2.e(2) - The requirements for Component 1: Asset Vulnerability Evaluation
and Component 2: Alternatives Evaluation seem to overlap - specifically the evaluation
of structural improvements and/or mitigation measures. It is our current understanding
that in Component 1 the Co-permittee must only describe potential structural
improvements and/or mitigation measures and in Component 2, the Co-permittee must
perform a cost-effective analysis to choose the appropriate structural improvement and/or
mitigation measure. Please confirm. 
V. Conclusion 
Braintree appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Permit and State Permit.
Please feel free to contact Braintree Town Solicitor, Crystal Huff (781) 794-8085 or
Chuff@braintreema. gov if you have any questions or would like to arrange a meeting to discuss
the resolution of the issues raised above. 
8

Sincerely, 
~ (P, ~ 
Charles C. Kokoros
Mayor 
9

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
Region 1
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100
Boston, MA 02109-3912 
VIA EMAIL - READ RECEIPT REQUESTED 
March 8, 2023 
Re: Waiver of Permit Application and Signatory Requirements for Municipal Satellite Sewage 
Collection System – co-permittees to the MWRA Deer Island Treatment Plant, NPDES No. 
MA0103284 
Dear MWRA Deer Island Treatment Plant Satellite Collection System Member Community: 
EPA Region 1 is currently developing a draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
discharge permit and an accompanying fact sheet that summarizes the significant facts, legal and policy
questions considered in preparing the draft permit for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Deer
Island Treatment Plant (MWRA DITP) including the collection systems from all member communities.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of our plans for incorporating communities with satellite
collection systems that discharge into the MWRA DITP as co-permittees in the permit and any permit
application requirements. Please be advised that your municipality will be included as a co-permittee in
the forthcoming Draft NPDES discharge permit issued to the MWRA for the DITP. 
The satellite collection system member communities of the MWRA DITP listed in Attachment A will all
be included as co-permittees in the draft discharge permit issued for the DITP. Under NPDES regulations,
all Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) must submit permit application information set forth in
40 CFR § 122.21(j) unless otherwise indicated. Where Region 1 of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has “access to substantially identical information,” or such information is “not of material concern
for a specific permit,” the Regional Administrator may waive permit application requirements for existing
POTWs. Id. Pursuant to my authority under this regulation, I am waiving NPDES permit application and
signatory requirements applicable to certain operators, including your system, of the municipal satellite
collection systems that contribute to the MWRA DITP. 
EPA regulations do not specifically address how NPDES permit coverage is to be obtained by satellite
collection system components of POTWs. Ordinarily the treatment plant operator applies for the POTW’s
NPDES permit, and discharges from the POTW, including those from the collection systems operated by
others, are covered by the permit issued to the treatment plant. Satellite collection system operators have
generally not submitted separate permit applications for coverage under the POTW permit, because the
treatment plant operator generally submits the information necessary for the permit writer to write limits
and conditions in the permit applicable to all components of the POTW on the basis of the treatment
plant’s application. Receiving a single application from the operator of a portion of the discharging
POTW is one reasonable way to structure the permit application process, particularly in the case of a
regionally integrated treatment works where there is a centralized administrative entity responsible for
operating the POTW Treatment Plant and coordinating wastewater flows from the multiple satellite
collection system operators that all contribute to the final effluent discharge. 
Although EPA has the authority to require operators of the municipal satellite collection systems to
submit individual permit applications, in this case I find that requiring a single permit application
executed by the regional POTW owner/operator will be sufficient, as I have been provided, or have access
to, “substantially identical information” to what would have been provided to EPA by the collection
system operator, or that the detailed information requirements of Form 2A are not otherwise material to

EPA’s drafting of co-permittee requirements. Requiring a single application will also be less duplicative
and less burdensome than requiring separate applications from each municipal satellite collection system
owner/operator. Municipal satellite collection system owners/operators should consult with the regional
POTW operators to ensure that any information provided to EPA about their respective entities is
accurate and complete. If EPA requires additional information, it may use its information collection
authority under CWA § 308. 33 U.S.C. § 1318. 
As a general matter, EPA does not foresee the need to require individual permit applications from each
municipal satellite collection system operator and anticipates that information in the POTW operator’s
permit application and other information in the administrative record will be sufficient to establish permit
limits and conditions for the entire treatment works. In the future permitting cycles, EPA will indicate
whether it will require additional material from those entities operating the outlying portions of the
treatment works to render the permit application “complete” under 40 CFR § 124.3(c) after receiving and
reviewing the re-application for the permit from the MWRA DITP. 
This notice reflects my determination based on the specific facts and circumstances in this case. It is not
intended to bind the agency in future determinations where a separate permit for municipal satellites
would not be duplicative or immaterial. 
Prior to issuing the draft permit and fact sheet for public notice, EPA Region 1 will hold a virtual
informational session for MWRA and the co-permittees on March 28, 2023 from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm
( Click here to join the meeting ). EPA will explain the draft permit’s co-permittee requirements at this
meeting and will answer questions pertaining to EPA Region 1’s co-permitting strategy. 
The co-permittees and MWRA will each receive a copy of the draft permit and the fact sheet when EPA
publicly notices them. The public will then have at least 30 days to submit comments on the draft permit
to EPA. Consistent with 40 CFR § 124.10, EPA’s public notice will detail how the public may comment
on the draft permit. 
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this decision, do not hesitate to contact Michele Barden
of my staff at (617) 918-1539 or barden.michele@epa.gov . 
Sincerely, 
David W. Cash
Regional Administrator
Office of the Regional Administrator 
cc: Claire Golden, MassDEP
Frederick Laskey, MWRA

Attachment A
Co-permittees to NPDES Permit No. MA0103284
MWRA Deer Island Treatment Plant 
Town of Arlington
Department of Public Works
51 Grove Street
Arlington, MA 02476 
Town of Ashland
Department of Public Works
20 Ponderosa Road
Ashland, MA 01721 
Town of Bedford
Department of Public Works
314 Great Road
Bedford, MA 01730 
Town of Belmont
Department of Public Works
19 Moore Street
Belmont, MA 02478 
Town of Braintree
Department of Public Works
P.O. Box 850903
Braintree, MA 02185-0903 
Town of Brookline
Town Engineer
333 Washington Street
Brookline, MA 02445 
Town of Burlington
Town Engineer
29 Center Street
Burlington, MA 01803 
Town of Canton
Department of Public Works
801 Washington Street
Canton, MA 02021 
Town of Dedham
Department of Public Works
55 River Street
Dedham, MA 02026 
City of Everett
Department of Public Works
19 Norman Street
Everett, MA 02149 
City of Framingham
Department of Public Works
100 Western Avenue
Framingham, MA 01701 
Town of Hingham
Department of Public Works
210 Central Street
Hingham, MA 02043 
Town of Holbrook
Department of Public Works
50 N. Franklin Street
Holbrook, MA 02343 
Town of Lexington
Department of Public Works
201 Bedford Street
Lexington, MA 02420 
City of Malden
Department of Public Works
200 Pleasant Street
Malden, MA 02148 
City of Medford
Town Engineer
85 George P. Hassett Drive
Medford, MA 02155 
City of Melrose
Department of PublicWorks
72 Tremont St.
Melrose, MA 02176 
Town of Milton
Department of Public Works
629 Randolph Avenue
Milton, MA 02186 
Town of Natick
Department of Public Works
75 West Street
Natick, MA 01760 
Town of Needham
Department of Public Works
470 Dedham Avenue
Needham, MA 02492 
City of Newton
Department of Public Works
1000 Commonwealth Avenue
Newton, MA 02459 
Town of Norwood
Department of Public Works
566 Washington Street
Norwood, MA 02062 
City of Quincy
Department of Public Works
55 Sea Street
Quincy, MA 02169 
Town of Randolph
Department of PublicWorks
41 South Main Street
Randolph, MA 02368

Town of Reading
Department of Public Works
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867 
City of Revere
Department of PublicWorks
321 Rear Charger Street
Revere, MA 02151 
Town of Stoneham
Public Works Department
16 Pine Street
Stoneham, MA 02180 
Town of Stoughton
Department of PublicWorks
950 Central Street
Stoughton, MA 02072 
Town of Wakefield
Director of Public Works
1 Lafayette Street
Wakefield, MA 01880 
Town of Walpole
Department of PublicWorks
135 School Street
Walpole, MA 02081 
City of Waltham
Department of PublicWorks
165 Lexington Street
Waltham, MA 02452 
Town of Watertown
Department of PublicWorks
124 Orchard Street
Watertown, MA 02472 
Town of Wellesley
Department of PublicWorks
455 Worcester Street
Wellesley, MA 02481 
Town of Westwood
Department of PublicWorks
50 Carby Street
Westwood, MA 02090 
Town of Weymouth
Department of PublicWorks
120 Winter Street
Weymouth, MA 02188 
Town of Wilmington
Department of Public Works
121 Glen Road
Wilmington, MA 01887 
Town of Winchester
Department of PublicWorks
15 Lake Street
Winchester, MA 01890 
Town of Winthrop
Department of Public Works
100 Kennedy Drive
Winthrop, MA 02152 
City of Woburn
Public Works Sewer Division
50 North Warren Street
Woburn, MA 01801 
NOTE: The Cities of Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea and Somerville have received separate letters as current
permittees under NPDES Permit Nos. MA0101192, MA0101974, MA0101877 and MA0101982, respectively.